^It's not about sustenance, it's about passing the virus to a healthy host.

Click to expand...

Actually, that is about sustenance. Viruses eat, it's just that what they eat is incredibly small (DNA strands). A healthy body will have healthy cells and therefore intact DNA strands. A body with a disease caused by a virus or some degenerative disorder will have unhealthy cells and broken or perverted DNA strands, which to the zombie virus is pretty much the equivalent of spoiled meat. (Actually, not the equivalent. That pretty much is spoiled meat.)

Click to expand...

That's a strained analogy. There are a 100 trillion cells in the human body. The worst of illnesses isn't going to make the slightest dent in that.

The most important thing for a virus is that the host is susceptible to it and that they're alive.

Was Matthew Fox cast before or after Damon Lindelof was brought in to rewrite the last act of the film? Because Lindelof might have suggested bringing him onboard, or Fox might have wanted to work with him again.

Whatever it was, surely the explanation could not be that the director or producers just wanted to work with Matthew Fox, because that guy is a charisma abyss.

I read the book a few months ago and absolutely loved it. It was World War Two... with zombies. The movie was nothing like it, but it was very entertaining. I was really disappointed there was no Battle of Yonkers though. It was important to show that the fully armed and prepared and stage US military could not stop the zombie threat.

I'm not sure how the next two movies will/would go from here. All the soldiers around the world will be immune to the zombies? Doesn't sound very fair just walking around gunning them down with no personal danger.

Where did you read about the Matthew Fox part of the ending? I read about the Moscow scenes but not about his wife having an affair with Matthew Fox's character.

Click to expand...

There are a few articles, I think there was a big huffington post one which went into details and they discussed it in an IGN video. It's been in most of the articles I've read about the original ending. I don't think it was technically an affair either, she was sleeping with him so he would protect her. I can understand why they needed to change that part of the ending it sounds terrible.

I went with friends and liked the movie more than I expected to (I probably wouldn't have seen it on my own).

Click to expand...

Agreed. I went into the theatre with very low expectations and was surprised. In fact, I liked it better than Superman for which I had very high expectations after all the hype.

Regarding the scent thing, I thought that was a clever way to solve the problem. And as one of the characters points out, animals have the same natural instinct to not feed on sick prey.

Click to expand...

But it goes back to "how sick is sick enough?" What ailment did the gimp guy in S. Korea suffer from that made him "immune." Does "cancer" (or whatever the bald, reedy kid in Israel had) or "oldmanism" (or whatever the old man in Israel had) really smell that different enough than a cold? And why would ANY infection or disease matter to a creature that's already dead and not biologically active?

Again, the cold, the flu, virtually ANY disease or infection can be "deadly" in the right circumstances. So wouldn't the zombies pretty much ignore the vast majority of the population? And even if you're not suffering from a viral infection you still "have" every one you've ever had, you're just immune so it doesn't make you sick anymore.

That plot thread doesn't hold up under much scrutiny. I *liked* it because it was an interesting take on things and if they go ahead with more movies it'll be interesting to see how the build on it but it's not something that holds up under much thought.

The Battle of Yonkers remains one of the most asinine descriptions of a military action ever put to paper. It's a perfect storm of every cliched dumb thing the military could do when facing zombies as imagined by someone with zero military experience. How it was written was amusing, but woefully divorced from reality.

I get it, slow zombies are only a threat if everyone is stupid during the initial outbreak and allows it to get out of control. It's a conceit of the genre. If the military went in and curb-stomped the shambling hordes on day one of the outbreak, that wouldn't be much of a zombie story.

Which is why I appreciated the movie changing the zombies into rapid-change, fast-movers. It at least gives the zombies a realistic chance to overwhelm hurriedly prepared positions. Although, I would have really liked to see what some armored cavalry units could do to blunt/divert the onrush and help push them back. Not to mention the impervious main battle tanks dominating everything. I don't care how many zombies crowd together, they ain't lifting a 70+ ton tank, let alone penetrating its armor with their teeth or fingernails. Hollywood has a depressing tendency to just stick Humvees everywhere and call it "the military".

Yeah, I like the fast-change aspect too. Also that the zombies were more concerned with biting to spread the "disease" and then moving on; rather than apparently not being very good at finishing their meals. (A zombie trope often glanced over.)

Good point. I always wonder why typical zombies stop eating people just as they're sufficiently horrifying enough before moving on, but not so gnawed on that they can't get up, shamble and grapple with fresh victims. The fast change/spread virus imperative fixes that. Zombies don't eat other zombies here because hunger for food (on the macro scale) has nothing to do with their urge to attack.

But it goes back to "how sick is sick enough?" What ailment did the gimp guy in S. Korea suffer from that made him "immune." Does "cancer" (or whatever the bald, reedy kid in Israel had) or "oldmanism" (or whatever the old man in Israel had) really smell that different enough than a cold? And why would ANY infection or disease matter to a creature that's already dead and not biologically active?

Click to expand...

Objectively speaking was the fast moving zombies being able to detect sick humans any worse in terms of a plot than Khan's magic blood being able to bring Jim Kirk back from the dead and cure sick people?

Both are complete fiction. And in both films we suspend our disbelief for the enjoyment of the film.

Now that I think about it - I liked World War Z even moreso than the latest Trek film. The Trek film was laced with as many if not more plot holes than Z but side-by-side Brad Pitt simply is a better actor than either Pine or Cumberbatch.

I get it, slow zombies are only a threat if everyone is stupid during the initial outbreak and allows it to get out of control. It's a conceit of the genre. If the military went in and curb-stomped the shambling hordes on day one of the outbreak, that wouldn't be much of a zombie story.

Click to expand...

Part of the suspension of disbelief problem with The Walking Dead where the Zombies now do rule the world is as you say, either the US military was very slow to react to the threat or they are incompetent.

Also the other problem is the gun ownership percentages in the US and people's ability to defend themselves against the threat. You'd think that quickly people would learn that a shot in the head would end the problem and at least some parts of the media would be left to tell the remaining populace how to handle the problem.

World War Z's fast moving Zombies are a far more credible way for the world to be completely overrun.

Yeah, I like the fast-change aspect too. Also that the zombies were more concerned with biting to spread the "disease" and then moving on; rather than apparently not being very good at finishing their meals. (A zombie trope often glanced over.)

Click to expand...

The only problem with the fast-change zombies is that it almost completely eliminates airplanes and mass transit serving as a successful disease vector. They kept the reference to "planes being a perfect method of spreading the virus" from the book, but in the book that was only the case because you might not be symptomatic for a few days (I don't recall the exact timeline) after being bitten or otherwise exposed to the zombie virus, in which case you would spread the disease to another continent without even knowing it just by taking an international flight.

The most dangerous viruses in terms of being able to threaten the world are not the ones that kill their host quickly, it's the one where you are a carrier for days or even weeks without being noticeably symptomatic, and that way you can spread the disease far and wide. Ebola for instance, as terrible as it is, is fairly restricted to isolated areas with poor medical care, because it shows symptoms so quickly and has such a high mortality rate that it makes it difficult for it to spread beyond a relatively small region.

They tried to explain it by having a zombie stowaway onboard a plane like a plague rat, but that only worked because for some reason that zombie was extremely smart and crawled into the cargo deck of the plane and then into the freight elevator where he waited patiently to surprise the flight attendant, and because since the airport was being overrun there were no guards around to protect the perimeter of the plane. Early on during the breakout of the virus that wouldn't have been the case, so I don't see how the zombies could possibly spread via airplanes so successfully.

In reality it would be fairly easy to create isolated safe zones on islands and so forth and not let any uninspected flights or ships come in.

Of course, as you guys mentioned, the slow-change zombies carry with them their own set of plausibility issues in terms of why they aren't easier to contain and defeat, so it's kind of a toss up there.

Objectively speaking was the fast moving zombies being able to detect sick humans any worse in terms of a plot than Khan's magic blood being able to bring Jim Kirk back from the dead and cure sick people?

Click to expand...

Well, I commend you for moving beyond ST: Nemesis as the only movie you ever compare any other movie's implausibilities to, but you know there are like, hundreds of thousands of other movies out there other than Star Trek films to serve as a basis for comparison, right? Branch out a bit.

People make a big deal out of the whole magic blood thing, but I don't find it all that bad. It's not even in the top twenty worst technobabble items in Trek. If you can genetically engineer someone to the degree they did with Khan, I don't think giving them some kind of self-repairing cells seem that far-fetched. Sort of like a biological equivalent of molecular scale nanites to repair damaged cells and internal organs. The Genesis Device in TWoK was far more ridiculous if you want something to compare it to, though again, it's not like Star Trek is the only other movie series in the world.

I went in to see this with no preconceptions. I didn't read the book and managed to never even lay eyes on a trailer until about a week ago. I went with the wife who loves the zombie thing. All I wanted to do was have an entertaining couple of hours without having it suck. I'm glad to say it did entertain and I didn't think it sucked at all. I enjoyed the movie; Pitt did a good job as did his supporting characters - especially his eventual Israeli sidekick, and I enjoyed the SFX. The ending didn't bother me like it appears to have done others because I found it credible, but after reading about the 'Russian sequence', I hope it makes it to the DVD. It was a good couple of hours of fun.

Well, I commend you for moving beyond ST: Nemesis as the only movie you ever compare any other movie's implausibilities to, but you know there are like, hundreds of thousands of other movies out there other than Star Trek films to serve as a basis for comparison, right? Branch out a bit.

Click to expand...

Ah, Locutus - since both films came out within 1 month of each other - I think Trek or not - it's a fair example.

People make a big deal out of the whole magic blood thing, but I don't find it all that bad. It's not even in the top twenty worst technobabble items in Trek. If you can genetically engineer someone to the degree they did with Khan, I don't think giving them some kind of self-repairing cells seem that far-fetched. Sort of like a biological equivalent of molecular scale nanites to repair damaged cells and internal organs.

Click to expand...

Kirk would have still have been brain dead. So those are amazing nanites.

The point is IMO that I lilked both films and it seems odd that a suspension of disbelief for Khan's magic blood isn't farfetched whereas superfast zomibes wouldn't attack sick humans is.

A cougar can travel at 45 MPH and as they pointed out in the film likely wouldn't attack sick prey. A suspension of disbelief would suggest that the virus also enhances humans ability to smell even thought that isn't in the dialogue. Problem solved

Regardless in both Trek and Z - it's both fiction. I liked both films. Did you like Z?

I'm glad to say it did entertain and I didn't think it sucked at all. I enjoyed the movie; Pitt did a good job as did his supporting characters - especially his eventual Israeli sidekick, and I enjoyed the SFX.

Click to expand...

Agreed after all the negative press Z got - it actually is an entertaning film. People should give it a chance.

One thing I thought I'd be disappointed in was the scene where the zombies were trying to climb the wall. While it was obvious that the scene was computer generated the way it played out didn't end up being cheesy as some expected it might.